Chapter XI: Letter XI

THE SPHERE OF WOMAN AND MAN AS MORAL BEINGS THE SAME.

BROOKLINE, Mass., _8th month, 28th, 1837_.

DEAR FRIEND: I come now to that part of thy book, which is, of all others, the most important to the women of this country; thy ‘general views in relation to the place woman is appointed to fill by the dispensations of heaven.’ I shall quote paragraphs from thy book, offer my objections to them, and then throw before thee my own views.

Thou sayest, ‘Heaven has appointed to one sex the _superior_, and to the other the _subordinate_ station, and this without any reference to the character or conduct of either.’ This is an assertion without proof. Thou further sayest, that ‘it was designed that the mode of gaining influence and exercising power should be _altogether different and peculiar_.’ Does the Bible teach this? ‘Peace on earth, and good will to men, is the character of all the rights and privileges, the influence and the power of _woman_.’ Indeed! Did our Holy Redeemer preach the doctrines of _peace to our sex_ only? ‘A _man_ may act on Society by the collision of intellect, in public debate; _he_ may urge his measures by a sense of shame, by fear and by personal interest; _he_ may coerce by the combination of public sentiment; _he_ may drive by physical force, and _he_ does _not_ overstep the boundaries of his sphere.’ Did Jesus, then, give a different rule of action to men and women? Did he tell his disciples, when he sent them out to preach the gospel, that man might appeal to the fear, and shame, and interest of those he addressed, and coerce by public sentiment, and drive by physical force? ‘But (that) all the power and all the conquests that are lawful to _woman_ are those only which appeal to the kindly, generous, peaceful and benevolent principles?’ If so, I should come to a very different conclusion from the one at which thou hast arrived: I should suppose that _woman was the superior_, and _man the subordinate being_, inasmuch as moral power is immeasurably superior to ‘physical force.’

‘Woman is to win every thing by peace and love; by making _herself_ so much respected, &c. that to yield to _her_ opinions, and to gratify _her_ wishes, will be the free-will offering of the heart.’ This principle may do as the rule of action to the fashionable belle, whose idol is _herself_; whose every attitude and smile are designed to win the admiration of others to _herself_; and who enjoys, with exquisite delight, the double-refined incense of flattery which is offered to _her_ vanity, by yielding to _her_ opinions, and gratifying _her_ wishes, because they are _hers_. But to the humble Christian, who feels that it is _truth_ which she seeks to recommend to others, _truth_ which she wants them to esteem and love, and not herself, this subtle principle must be rejected with holy indignation. Suppose she could win thousands to her opinions, and govern them by her wishes, how much nearer would they be to Jesus Christ, if she presents no higher motive, and points to no higher leader?

‘But this is all to be accomplished in the domestic circle.’ Indeed! ‘Who made thee a ruler and a judge over all?’ I read in the Bible, that Miriam, and Deborah, and Huldah, were called to fill _public stations_ in Church and State. I find Anna, the prophetess, speaking in the temple ‘unto all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.’ During his ministry on earth, I see women following him from town to town, in the most public manner; I hear the woman of Samaria, on her return to the city, telling the _men_ to come and see a man who had told her all things that ever she did. I see them even standing on Mount Calvary, around his cross, in the most exposed situation; but He never _rebuked_ them; He never told them it was unbecoming _their sphere in life_ to mingle in the crowds which followed his footsteps. Then, again, I see the cloven tongues of fire resting on each of the heads of the one hundred and twenty disciples, some of whom were _women_; yea, I hear _them preaching_ on the day of Pentecost to the multitudes who witnessed the outpouring of the spirit on that glorious occasion; for, unless _women_ as well as men received the Holy Ghost, and _prophesied_, what did Peter mean by telling them, ‘This is _that_ which was spoken by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass in the last days, said _God_, I will pour out my spirit upon _all_ flesh: and your sons and your _daughters shall prophesy_. … And on my servants and on my _handmaidens_, I will pour out in those days of my spirit; and _they shall prophesy_.’ This is the plain matter of fact, as Clark and Scott, Stratton and Locke, all allow. Mine is no ‘private interpretation,’ no mere sectarian view.

I find, too, that Philip had four daughters which did _prophesy_; and what is still more convincing, I read in the xi. of I. Corinthians, some particular directions from the Apostle Paul, as to _how_ women were to pray and prophesy in the assemblies of the people--_not_ in the domestic circle. On examination, too, it appears that the very same word, _Diakonos_, which, when applied to Phœbe, Romans xvi. 1, is translated _servant_, when applied to Tychicus, Ephesians vi. 21, is rendered _minister_. Ecclesiastical History informs us, that this same Phœbe was pre-eminently useful, as a minister in the Church, and that female ministers suffered martyrdom in the first ages of Christianity. And what, I ask, does the Apostle mean when he says in Phillipians iv. 3.--‘Help those women who labored with me in the gospel’? Did these holy women of old perform all their gospel labors in ‘the domestic and social circle’? I trow not.

Thou sayest, ‘the moment woman begins to feel the promptings of ambition, or the thirst for power, her ægis of defence is gone.’ Can man, then, retain his ægis when he indulges these guilty passions? Is it woman only who suffers this loss?

‘All the generous promptings of chivalry, all the poetry of romantic gallantry, depend upon woman’s retaining her place as _dependent_ and _defenceless_, and making no claims, and maintaining no rights, but what are the gifts of honor, rectitude and love.’

I cannot refrain from pronouncing this sentiment as beneath the dignity of any woman who names the name of Christ. No woman, who understands her dignity as a moral, intellectual, and accountable being, cares aught for any attention or any protection, vouchsafed by ‘the promptings of chivalry, and the poetry of romantic gallantry’? Such a one loathes such littleness, and turns with disgust from all such silly insipidities. Her noble nature is insulted by such paltry, sickening adulation, and she will not stoop to drink the foul waters of so turbid a stream. If all this sinful foolery is to be withdrawn from our sex, with all my heart I say, _the sooner the better_. Yea, I say more, no woman who lives up to the true glory of her womanhood, will ever be treated with such _practical contempt_. Every man, when in the presence of true moral greatness, ‘will find an influence thrown around him,’ which will utterly forbid the exercise of ‘the poetry of romantic gallantry.’

What dost thou mean by woman’s retaining her place as defenceless and dependent? Did our Heavenly Father furnish man with any offensive or defensive weapons? Was _he_ created any less defenceless than _she_ was? Are they not equally defenceless, equally dependent on Him? What did Jesus say to his disciples, when he commissioned them to preach the gospel?--‘Behold, I send you forth as SHEEP in the midst of wolves; be ye wise as serpents, and _harmless_ as _doves_. What more could he have said to women?

Again, she must ‘make no claims, and maintain no rights, but what are the gifts of honor, rectitude and love.’ From whom does woman receive her _rights_? From God, or from man? What dost thou mean by saying, her rights are the _gifts_ of honor, rectitude and love? One would really suppose that man, as her lord and master, was the gracious giver of her rights, and that these rights were bestowed upon her by ‘the promptings of chivalry, and the poetry of romantic gallantry,’--out of the abundance of his honor, rectitude and love. Now, if I understand the real state of the case, woman’s rights are not the gifts of man--no! nor the _gifts_ of God. His gifts to her may be recalled at his good pleasure--but her _rights_ are an integral part of her moral being; they cannot be withdrawn; they must live with her forever. Her rights lie at the foundation of all her duties; and, so long as the divine commands are binding upon her, so long must her rights continue.

‘A woman may seek the aid of co-operation and combination among her own sex, to assist her in her appropriate offices of piety, charity,’ &c. _Appropriate_ offices! Ah! here is the great difficulty. What are they? Who can point them out? Who has ever attempted to draw a line of separation between the duties of men and women, as _moral_ beings, without committing the grossest inconsistencies on the one hand, or running into the most arrant absurdities on the other?

‘Whatever, in any measure, throws a woman into the attitude of a combatant, either for herself or others--whatever binds her in a party conflict--whatever obliges her in any way to exert coercive influences, throws her out of her appropriate sphere.’ If, by a _combatant_, thou meanest one who ‘drives by _physical force_,’ then I say, _man_ has no more right to appear as _such_ a combatant than woman; for all the pacific precepts of the gospel were given to _him_, as well as to her. If, by a _party conflict_, thou meanest a struggle for power, either civil or ecclesiastical, a thirst for the praise and the honor of man, why, then I would ask, is this the proper sphere of _any_ moral, accountable being, man or woman? If, by _coercive influences_, thou meanest the use of force or of fear, such as slaveholders and warriors employ, then, I repeat, that _man_ has no more right to exert these than _woman_. All such influences are repudiated by the precepts and examples of Christ, and his apostles; so that, after all, this appropriate sphere of woman is _just as appropriate to man_. These ‘general principles are correct,’ if thou wilt only permit them to be of _general application_.

Thou sayest that the propriety of woman’s coming forward as a suppliant for a portion of her sex who are bound in cruel bondage, depends entirely on its _probable results_. I thought the disciples of Jesus were to walk by _faith_, _not_ by sight. Did Abraham reason as to the _probable results_ of his offering up Isaac? No! or he could not have raised his hand against the life of his son; because in Isaac, he had been told, his seed should be called,--that seed in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed. O! when shall we learn that God is wiser than man--that his ways are higher than our ways, his thoughts than our thoughts--and that ‘obedience is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams?’ If we are always to _reason_ on the _probable results_ of performing our duty, I wonder what our Master meant by telling his disciples, that they must become like _little children_. I used to think he designed to inculcate the necessity of walking by faith, in childlike simplicity, docility and humility. But if we are to _reason_ as to the _probable results_ of obeying the injunctions to plead for the widow and the fatherless, and to deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, &c., then I do not know what he meant to teach.

According to what thou sayest, the women of this country are not to be governed by principles of duty, but by the effect their petitions produce on the members of Congress, and by the opinions of these men. If they deem them ‘obtrusive, indecorous, and unwise,’ they must not be sent. If _thou_ canst consent to exchange the precepts of the Bible for the opinions of _such a body of men_ as now sit on the destinies of this nation, I cannot. What is this but _obeying man_ rather than God, and seeking the _praise of man_ rather than of God? As to our petitions increasing the evils of slavery, this is merely an opinion, the correctness or incorrectness of which remains to be proved. When I hear Senator Preston of South Carolina, saying, that ‘he regarded the concerted movement upon the District of Columbia as an attempt to storm the gates of the citadel--as throwing the bridge over the moat’--and declaring that ‘the South must resist the _danger_ in its inception, or it would _soon become irresistible_‘--I feel confident that petitions will effect the work of emancipation, _thy_ opinion to the contrary notwithstanding. And when I hear Francis W. Pickens, from the same State, saying in a speech delivered in Congress--‘Mr. Speaker, we cannot mistake all these things. The truth is, the moral power of the world is against us. It is idle to disguise it. We must, sooner or later, meet the great issue that is to be made on this subject. Deeply connected with this, is the movement to be made on the District of Columbia. If the power be asserted in Congress to interfere here, or any approach be made toward that end, _it will give a shock to our institutions_ and the country, the consequences of which no man can foretell. Sir, as well might you grapple with iron grasp into the very heart and vitals of South Carolina, as to touch this subject here.’ When I hear these things from the lips of keen-eyed politicians of the South, northern apologies for not interfering with the subject of slavery, ‘lest it should increase, rather than diminish the evils it is wished to remove’ affect me little.

Another objection to woman’s petitions is, that they may ‘tend to bring females, as petitioners and partisans, into every political measure that may tend to injure and oppress their sex.’ As to their ever becoming partisans, i.e. sacrificing principles to power or interest, I reprobate this under all circumstances, and in _both_ sexes. But I trust my sisters may always be permitted to _petition_ for a redress of grievances. Why not? The right of petition is the only political right that women have: why not let them exercise it whenever they are aggrieved? Our fathers waged a bloody conflict with England, because _they_ were taxed without being represented. This is just what unmarried women of property now are. _They_ were not willing to be governed by laws which _they_ had no voice in making; but this is the way in which women are governed in this Republic. If, then, _we_ are taxed without being represented, and governed by laws _we_ have no voice in framing, then, surely, we ought to be permitted at least to remonstrate against ‘every political measure that may tend to injure and oppress our sex in various parts of the nation, and under the various public measures that may hereafter be enforced.’ Why not? Art thou afraid to trust the women of this country with discretionary power as to petitioning? Is there not sound principle and common sense enough among them, to regulate the exercise of this right? I believe they will always use it wisely. I am not afraid to trust my sisters--not I.

Thou sayest, ‘In this country, petitions to Congress, in reference to official duties of legislators, seem, IN ALL CASES, to fall entirely without the sphere of female duty. Men are the proper persons to make appeals to the rulers whom they appoint,’ &c. Here I entirely dissent from thee. The fact that women are denied the right of voting for members of Congress, is but a poor reason why they should also be deprived of the right of petition. If their numbers are counted to swell the number of Representatives in our State and National Legislatures, the _very least_ that can be done is to give them the right of petition in all cases whatsoever; and without any abridgement. If not, they are mere slaves, known only through their masters.

In my next, I shall throw out my own views with regard to ‘the appropriate sphere of woman’--and for the present, subscribe myself,

Thy Friend,

A. E. GRIMKÉ.